Yasin Gungor
07 April 2026•Update: 07 April 2026
US President Donald Trump authorized the war against Iran based on his own instincts and an aggressive pitch from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with his inner circle largely deferring to his wishes despite stark intelligence warnings, the New York Times reported Tuesday.
Netanyahu made a presentation Feb. 11 to Trump, arguing Iran was "ripe for regime change" and that a joint campaign could bring it down within weeks. He promised Iran's missile program would be destroyed quickly, the Strait of Hormuz kept open and retaliation against US interests kept minimal. He also said Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, would instigate an internal uprising to "finish the job," and showed a video montage featuring potential future Iranian leaders, including Reza Pahlavi, the eldest son of Iran’s deposed shah.
Trump's response was swift and appeared approving. "Sounds good to me," he told the prime minister.
US intelligence pushed back the following day. CIA Director John Ratcliffe used a single word to describe the regime-change scenarios: "farcical." Analysts concluded an uprising was entirely unrealistic. When concerns were raised with Trump, he brushed them off, saying regime change was "their problem."
When told Iran might close the Strait of Hormuz, Trump dismissed the possibility, assuming Tehran would capitulate before it came to that.
Vance's lone dissent
Of everyone in Trump's inner circle, Vice President JD Vance mounted the most sustained opposition, telling colleagues the war would be "a disaster." He warned it could trigger regional chaos, mass casualties, the depletion of US munitions, soaring gasoline prices and a fracturing of Trump's political coalition.
No one else mounted a forceful argument. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was described as the most enthusiastic supporter. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine repeatedly flagged risks but avoided taking a stand. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he would only support the operation if the goal was military rather than regime change. The legal team said it was permissible. The political team warned of backlash but ultimately deferred.
Trump's gut
Trump's confidence that the conflict would be swift and decisive was described as deep-rooted and largely immune to contrary evidence. He had been emboldened by Iran's muted response to US strikes on its nuclear facilities last June and by the operation that captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.
Unlike his first term, Trump's second-term advisers were described as viewing him as "a great man of history," with an almost superstitious faith in his instincts, an atmosphere that left little room for sustained dissent.
Regional escalations have continued since Israel and the US launched an offensive against Iran on Feb. 28.
Tehran has retaliated with drone and missile strikes targeting Israel, Jordan, Iraq and Gulf countries hosting US military assets, causing casualties and damage to infrastructure, while disrupting global markets and aviation.
